<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [Gemini Lake] HDMI 2.0 compliance test failed - HF1-51 AVI InfoFrame for Y420VDB and Y420CMBD" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107894#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - [Gemini Lake] HDMI 2.0 compliance test failed - HF1-51 AVI InfoFrame for Y420VDB and Y420CMBD" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107894">bug 107894</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:clinton.a.taylor@intel.com" title="Clinton Taylor <clinton.a.taylor@intel.com>"> Clinton Taylor</a> <pre> > I suppose we could just look for the HDMI forum vsdb instead? Still not enough as some 64:27 modes are HDMI 2.0 VICs and they could just be located in the DTD's. Ex. VIC 90 (2560x1080@60) is an HDMI 2.0 VIC that doesn't require scrambling and wouldn't be included in the vsdb. However, 2560x1080@60 is native in many HDMI 1.X monitors. My current fix for this compliance issue is: bool is_hdmi2_sink = connector->display_info.hdmi.scdc.supported || crtc_state->ycbcr420; to check for a YCbCr420. However this only fixes the problem for VIC 95, 96, etc. I still need to find a solution for other HDMI 2.0 VICs. Maybe OR in vsdb present, OR HDMI forum vendor data block present. Need to cover as many cases as necessary or we are just moving the problem to another test failure.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>